Summary
In Erwig v Edward F. Cook Agency, 173 AD2d 439 (2 Dept., 1991), the Appellate Division Second Department held that a policy holder's inquiry to her broker as to whether she had "good coverage" for her child to take the car out of state was not sufficient to impose liability upon the broker since the plaintiff did not make a specific request for coverage that would have provided protection in the event of an accident with an underinsured motorist, and in the absence of a specific request, the defendant had no duty to recommend or obtain that coverage.
Summary of this case from Giamundo v. DunnOpinion
May 6, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
We are satisfied that no issues of material fact precluded the granting of summary judgment in the defendant's favor. There is no common-law duty of an insurance company or its agency to advise a client to procure coverage not already provided in the client's policy (see, Downey v Allstate Ins. Co., 638 F. Supp. 322, 323 [SD NY]; Callahan v American Motorists Ins. Co., 56 Misc.2d 734). Moreover, even if there is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant was an agent of the plaintiff's parents (under whose policy he was named), the issue is not material. While an insurance broker acting as an agent of its customer has a duty of reasonable care to the customer to obtain the requested coverage within a reasonable time after the request, or to inform the customer of the agent's inability to do so, the agent owes no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct the customer insured to obtain additional coverage (see, Blonsky v Allstate Ins. Co., 128 Misc.2d 981). The record establishes only that the plaintiff's mother inquired of the defendant whether she had good coverage for the plaintiff taking a car out of State. She made no specific request for coverage that would have provided protection in the event of an accident with an underinsured motorist. In the absence of a specific request, the defendant had no duty to recommend or obtain that coverage. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.